• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where your taxes go

James972 said:
yes debt is very large. It's exactly like every family in America now has another (180k) mortgage to pay off a house, but they don't get to live in that house. This is why our standard of living is not going down. Republican capitalism is making us rich and Democrats are stealing and wasting the money!
Click to expand...



In 1969, I made $2 an hour, which left me with $66 per week after withholding. I had a single apartment for $60 per month in a low rent area. Gas was 30 cents ( about ) per gallon.

Today, similar jobs in L.A are paying about $12 an hour, about $400 per week after withholding ( might be lower, I don't know )
and a single apartment is $1500 per month ( that's low rent areas ). Gas is almost $4 per gallon ( and higher ) here in L.A.

That doesn't look like the standard of living is the same. In fact, the standard of living as gone way down.

Thanks to "capitalism".

Last President to balance the budget and wind up with a surplus was a Democrat. Last two economic crashes ( 1929 & 2008 ) a Republican was president.

In fact, stock gains, as well as most other economic indicators, historically speaking, have faired better under Democratic administrations.

Presidential Data 2016


I think Capitalism is necessary, but should be offset with a blend of socialism.


Capitalism for wants.

Socialism for needs.

Where does the pendulum rest?


I rests ONLY upon dead center.

That is why Democrats are better for America.
 
Conservative said:
OM, where did you get your education? Gov't doesn't go into debt with Bonds? What value does a bond create? Any long term obligation is debt. Getting really tired of left wing liberal socialist supporting massive gov't and ignoring reality that we don't need a 4.7 trillion dollar federal gov't duplicating a lot of what the states are doing.

It isn't the governments responsibility to satisfy demand, it is the gov'ts responsibility to provide incentive to the private sector to satisfy demand
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read my posts leading up to this, that explained why sovereign debt isn't true debt? If so, what didn't you understand? And if you didn't read them, why are you jumping into this debate?

I don't mind explaining this stuff over and over, as long as I detect some glimmer of curiosity or desire to understand. I have yet to detect that in you.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Did you bother to read my posts leading up to this, that explained why sovereign debt isn't true debt? If so, what didn't you understand? And if you didn't read them, why are you jumping into this debate?

I don't mind explaining this stuff over and over, as long as I detect some glimmer of curiosity or desire to understand. I have yet to detect that in you.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is how debt service benefits the American taxpayers? Your claim that deficits financed by bonds aren't truly debt defies the actual definition of debt.

debt
/det/
noun
something, typically money, that is owed or due.
Click to expand...

As for jumping into the so called debate, calling attention to your false claims and arrogance is part of a public forum. You want a private discussion go somewhere else
 
James972 said:
Yes a BBA or cap on spending as a % of GDP would be obvious instant solution, but of course Dems are totally irresponsible so it cant happen. Anybody know if Dems Medicare for all and Dems Green New Deal will help matters? BBA and spending cap are fiscally responsible and obvious solution but would ,in effect, make Dems illegal.
Click to expand...

Actually, a balanced budget amendment is a horrid idea. A balanced-budget amendment would cripple the economy in a recession, which would force harsh austerity when stimulus would be needed. Putting a cap on spending as share of GDP would do the same, because you’d have to cut spending whenever GDP went down, which would make it go down further.

Economic ignorance is alive and well wherever you get these ideas.
 
Conservative said:
What I don't understand is how debt service benefits the American taxpayers? Your claim that deficits financed by bonds aren't truly debt defies the actual definition of debt.
Click to expand...

It may not go along with the picture dictionary definition of "debt," but some things are more nuanced than a one-sentence definition. How about we just call those outstanding bonds, reserves, and dollars "national liabilities" instead of "national debt"? Would that make it easier to swallow? Because that's what they are - liabilities, in the accounting sense of the word. And those liabilities don't get extinguished by "repayment," they only get extinguished by running a budget surplus. (Another reason they should not be thought of as "debt.")

Debt service (interest) is used to effect monetary policy. That's the benefit, if you agree with the Fed's monetary policy.

debt
/det/
noun
something, typically money, that is owed or due.
Click to expand...

This is an imperfect analogy, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway...

If you owned a giant apple orchard - the only one in the country - and apples (to you) were basically infinite, would a debt denominated in apples be a burden to you? No, you could merely pick all the apples you needed to satisfy your debts, with interest - and pay your bills, for that matter. Your ONLY concern with this situation is not spending so many apples that they become worthless. To that end, taxing some of those apples back might be a good idea.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
It may not go along with the picture dictionary definition of "debt," but some things are more nuanced than a one-sentence definition. How about we just call those outstanding bonds, reserves, and dollars "national liabilities" instead of "national debt"? Would that make it easier to swallow? Because that's what they are - liabilities, in the accounting sense of the word. And those liabilities don't get extinguished by "repayment," they only get extinguished by running a budget surplus. (Another reason they should not be thought of as "debt.")

Debt service (interest) is used to effect monetary policy. That's the benefit, if you agree with the Fed's monetary policy.



This is an imperfect analogy, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway...

If you owned a giant apple orchard - the only one in the country - and apples (to you) were basically infinite, would a debt denominated in apples be a burden to you? No, you could merely pick all the apples you needed to satisfy your debts, with interest - and pay your bills, for that matter. Your ONLY concern with this situation is not spending so many apples that they become worthless. To that end, taxing some of those apples back might be a good idea.
Click to expand...

Money is not apples and debt service is dollars that could have been used for greater benefit to the American taxpayers. Outstanding bonds? Keep dodging and weaving making irrelevant comparisons between dollars and apples especially when those dollars affect the American taxpayers who are funding those bonds through higher taxes. People pay taxes to fund the federal gov't of which debt service is a category and since debt service provides ZERO value to the taxpayers it is a costly unnecessary expense that just gives the bureaucrats more power as they use the extra money to buy votes.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
When has a household ever had to pay off the national debt? I am still not sure why people apply the government debt to taxpayers, we don't actually ever have to pay it.
Click to expand...

It's a reference point everybody can understand. Throwing numbers around in the trillions is difficult to comprehend.

The problem is sooner or later people are going to understand that the US may be the next Venezuela and stop lending us money. I'm not even sure that will matter. We can always use our last million to buy a larger printing press.
 
Conservative said:
Money is not apples and debt service is dollars that could have been used for greater benefit to the American taxpayers.
Click to expand...

This mistakenly implies that you have a limited supply of apples, and using some for interest means that you don't have any more apples to spend on other stuff. Which is, of course, wrong.

Conservative said:
Outstanding bonds? Keep dodging and weaving making irrelevant comparisons between dollars and apples especially when those dollars affect the American taxpayers who are funding those bonds through higher taxes. People pay taxes to fund the federal gov't of which debt service is a category and since debt service provides ZERO value to the taxpayers it is a costly unnecessary expense that just gives the bureaucrats more power as they use the extra money to buy votes.
Click to expand...

Ah, there's that (lack of) intellectual curiosity that we all know and love.
 
jimbo said:
It's a reference point everybody can understand. Throwing numbers around in the trillions is difficult to comprehend.

The problem is sooner or later people are going to understand that the US may be the next Venezuela and stop lending us money. I'm not even sure that will matter. We can always use our last million to buy a larger printing press.
Click to expand...

Nobody "loans" us money anyway. Exchanging bonds for dollars (and then back again) isn't a loan in any normal sense of the word.

Tell me, what do you think prevents the government from simply printing up dollars and spending them, instead of issuing bonds and going through that whole dance?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
This mistakenly implies that you have a limited supply of apples, and using some for interest means that you don't have any more apples to spend on other stuff. Which is, of course, wrong.



Ah, there's that (lack of) intellectual curiosity that we all know and love.
Click to expand...

Any curiosity that could possibly exist is trumped by logic and common sense when it comes to money. Over 500 billion dollars annually and rising is money to fund the debt and pay for the long term obligations the entitlement programs created. You seem to lack the basic logic and common sense trait obviously showing books smarts but street stupidity.

I have spent 72 years on this earth, 35 years in the private sector actually running a business and I can specifically state that you have very little business sense, very little economic sense and very little understanding of people and human nature.
 
Conservative said:
Any curiosity that could possibly exist is trumped by logic and common sense when it comes to money. Over 500 billion dollars annually and rising is money to fund the debt and pay for the long term obligations the entitlement programs created. You seem to lack the basic logic and common sense trait obviously showing books smarts but street stupidity.

I have spent 72 years on this earth, 35 years in the private sector actually running a business and I can specifically state that you have very little business sense, very little economic sense and very little understanding of people and human nature.
Click to expand...

Explain to me where you think money comes from.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Nobody "loans" us money anyway. Exchanging bonds for dollars (and then back again) isn't a loan in any normal sense of the word.

Tell me, what do you think prevents the government from simply printing up dollars and spending them, instead of issuing bonds and going through that whole dance?
Click to expand...

Really? And you claim to understand this issue? what the hell do you believe a bond is if not a loan like a bank does paying interest. Foreign gov'ts own over 40% of our debt and we pay them interest on LOANING us money to subsidize all that social spending you and the radical left want to support. Our budget is made up of discretionary and mandatory spending, discretionary spending is solely and completely funded by tax dollars, what is left over isn't enough to fund the mandatory spending created by bureaucrats all in the name of compassion and all designed to create career jobs and provide power. That is reality that you want to ignore. We don't need a 4.7 trillion dollar budget with over 3 trillion of that mandatory spending. Your ideology is bankrupting the country especially with 44% of the American people not paying any Federal Income taxes even though they are earning money
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Explain to me where you think money comes from.
Click to expand...

I know exactly where it initially came from(gov't printing presses) with zero value, value created by demand and costs of producing the products or services created.
 
Conservative said:
I know exactly where it initially came from(gov't printing presses) with zero value, value created by demand and costs of producing the products or services created.
Click to expand...

So, why do you think the old money is valuable, but new money isn't? Things get produced when the government spends, and more things get produced when that money gets re-spent.

And before you go where I already know you're going to go, tell me again how my apple analogy is wrong.

The government can obviously create money as it wishes. Even you have to admit that much.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Really? And you claim to understand this issue? what the hell do you believe a bond is if not a loan like a bank does paying interest. Foreign gov'ts own over 40% of our debt and we pay them interest on LOANING us money to subsidize all that social spending you and the radical left want to support. Our budget is made up of discretionary and mandatory spending, discretionary spending is solely and completely funded by tax dollars, what is left over isn't enough to fund the mandatory spending created by bureaucrats all in the name of compassion and all designed to create career jobs and provide power. That is reality that you want to ignore. We don't need a 4.7 trillion dollar budget with over 3 trillion of that mandatory spending. Your ideology is bankrupting the country especially with 44% of the American people not paying any Federal Income taxes even though they are earning money
Click to expand...



There is about $20 trillion (or whatever the national debt is now) out there that was NEVER the product of taxation, yet the government was still able to spend it. I know that's a lot for your little brain to wrap itself around, but economics can be complicated. Your 72 years on Earth and your 35 years working does not automatically qualify you as knowledgeable on all subjects, especially economics. And your inability and/or unwillingness to listen to people on the subject isn't helping you catch up, either.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:


There is about $20 trillion (or whatever the national debt is now) out there that was NEVER the product of taxation, yet the government was still able to spend it. I know that's a lot for your little brain to wrap itself around, but economics can be complicated. Your 72 years on Earth and your 35 years working does not automatically qualify you as knowledgeable on all subjects, especially economics. And your inability and/or unwillingness to listen to people on the subject isn't helping you catch up, either.
Click to expand...


WRONG!!! Debt is never the product of taxation, it is the product of SPENDING. Gov't is the only entity that creates money by printing it and affects the value of the money

The 72 years on the earth, 35 years in the private sector provides me with the experience you lack, the understanding of incentive that you don't have, and the ability to base decisions on experience gained not a textbook

Your book smart arrogance is going to catch to you one of these days, hope I am here to see it
 
Conservative said:
WRONG!!! Debt is never the product of taxation, it is the product of SPENDING. Gov't is the only entity that creates money by printing it and affects the value of the money
Click to expand...

You missed the point completely. And that point is that the government is perfectly capable of spending without taxation. Which goes back to my apple orchard analogy that went right over your head.

Conservative said:
The 72 years on the earth, 35 years in the private sector provides me with the experience you lack, the understanding of incentive that you don't have, and the ability to base decisions on experience gained not a textbook
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm just a young punk, a 54-year old attorney with too much schoolin' and too many books. You know, whenever you brag about how your age and real-life experience is better than higher education, it doesn't put you in the flattering light that you think it does. It just makes you look old and stubborn. (And uneducated.)

Conservative said:
Your book smart arrogance is going to catch to you one of these days, hope I am here to see it
Click to expand...

All we know for sure is that you won't be the one to catch me.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
You missed the point completely. And that point is that the government is perfectly capable of spending without taxation. Which goes back to my apple orchard analogy that went right over your head.



Yeah, I'm just a young punk, a 54-year old attorney with too much schoolin' and too many books. You know, whenever you brag about how your age and real-life experience is better than higher education, it doesn't put you in the flattering light that you think it does. It just makes you look old and stubborn. (And uneducated.)



All we know for sure is that you won't be the one to catch me.
Click to expand...

Of course they can spend without taxation but that spending has to be funded by printing, borrowing, or raising taxes. You don't seem to come close to grasping the concept of debt service and the consequences.

I couldn't care less what your job is only the fact that logic, common sense, and actual business experience are missing. Why on earth would I want to catch up with you as no one could ever catch up with your arrogance and superiority attitude

I answered every question you posed only to see you dodge those answer or totally ignore them. There is absolutely no value to the taxpayers for debt service as that is money, 40% of which goes overseas to foreign countries. Rather than spending 500 billion plus a year and rising that money could be better used by giving it back to the taxpayers
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Nobody "loans" us money anyway. Exchanging bonds for dollars (and then back again) isn't a loan in any normal sense of the word.

Tell me, what do you think prevents the government from simply printing up dollars and spending them, instead of issuing bonds and going through that whole dance?
Click to expand...

I've wondered about that. I don't understand the whole charade. Why do we even have a budget when nobody expects to live within it? Why do people loan us money when nobody expects us to pay it back?
 
jimbo said:
I've wondered about that. I don't understand the whole charade. Why do we even have a budget when nobody expects to live within it? Why do people loan us money when nobody expects us to pay it back?
Click to expand...

Bonds used to be necessary when we were on the gold standard. The govt. couldn't create more gold-backed dollars than they had the gold to back, so in order to deficit spend, they needed to borrow some of those dollars back. That was real debt, but only because we voluntarily chose to be on the gold standard.

Now, bonds are just used to effect monetary policy. You (or China) collect a pile of dollars that you aren't going to spend anytime soon, so you buy interest-bearing bonds for risk-free saving. And as long as the national debt doesn't get any smaller, those bonds aren't getting cashed in and spent, in a net sense.

A growing economy needs a growing supply of money, plus you have to account for the money that savers remove from active circulation.
 
James972 said:
Actually our tax dollars go to pay interest on the liberal's $22T national debt. 1+1=2
Click to expand...
LIBERAL'S debt????
Have you forgotten that Reagan ran the debt up 186% 1.86 Trillion dollars in 1980 dollars or 4,394 trillion in 2019 dollars
Bush I increased it by 54% a 1.554 T increase or 3.01 T in 2019 dollars
Clinton increased it 32% 1.396 T or 2.177 trillion in 2019 dollars
Bush II increased it 5.849 Trillion 101% or 6.91 Trillion in 2019 dollars
and Obama ran it up 74% or 8.588 Trillion in 2019 dollars

so lets see the two Dem Presidents Clinton ran it up 32% 2.177 T in 2019 dollars add that to Obama's 8.588 Trillion dollars in 2019 dollars for a total of 9.984 Trillion dollars
and the Republicans have added 14.31 trillion dollars and that is NOT adding in the almost 2 Trillion Trump has added on since his first fiscal year started
so Reagan and Bush II ran the debt up more on percentage then Obama did and they all ran it up more on a percentage then Clinton infect Clinton was the one to run it up the least in 2019 dollars

So just from Reagan on it looks like it is mostly a Republican debt not a liberal one
and in Trumps first fiscal year he has run the debt up more then Obama did in 5 out of the 8 years he was in office
Have a nice evening
 
Tbird19482 said:
LIBERAL'S debt????
Have you forgotten that Reagan ran the debt up 186%
Click to expand...

Hate to rock your world but the president is not the govt. Spending bills originate in the House. Notice the way a conservative is made to feel like a kindergarten teacher? Sad.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Tell me, what do you think prevents the government from simply printing up dollars and spending them, instead of issuing bonds and going through that whole dance?
Click to expand...

printing too much money causes inflation which is detrimental to economic growth. Do you understand??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom